Defensive Problem
-
Die-Hard-Fan
- piglet
- Posts: 35
- youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:07 pm
- Location: Arizona
Defensive Problem
A lot of the post's I have read are about how our DB's are playing horribly right now, which is true. Everyone is hoping for Shawn Springs to get back, me included, but one name I don't hear and to me one of the big reasons that our secondary is so horrible is because we are missing Pierson Prioleau. This guy if he was not injured would make a big difference for us, I for one was very upset and knew we would miss him when he went down in the opener. I am afraid it is going to be a long season, we might head into the bye 3-4 I hope I am wrong we will see.
"I Believe, and always will whether our record is 1-15 or 15-1."
I thought of Prioleau as well. Doughty hasn't been impressive at all.
It's apparent the lack of veteran depth at the safety position as well. But I do think it all revolves around Springs because if he was in, we wouldn't have needed to drop our front 7 back on most of the plays.
It's apparent the lack of veteran depth at the safety position as well. But I do think it all revolves around Springs because if he was in, we wouldn't have needed to drop our front 7 back on most of the plays.
RIP Sean Taylor 1983-2007
RIP Kevin Mitchell 1971-2007
RIP Justin Skaggs 1979-2007
RIP Sammy Baugh 1914-2008
RIP JPFair
RIP VetSkinsFan
#60 Chris Samuels: 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time Pro Bowl left tackle!
RIP Kevin Mitchell 1971-2007
RIP Justin Skaggs 1979-2007
RIP Sammy Baugh 1914-2008
RIP JPFair
RIP VetSkinsFan
#60 Chris Samuels: 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time Pro Bowl left tackle!
3-4 at the bye?
I think you might be right. I think we will win vs. Tennesee. At the colts, I'm not 100% sold based on the ups and downs of this season. There is no consistent play from week to week. I think the skins can beat the colts, it depends on which skins team comes to play.
-
The Hogster
- #######
- Posts: 7225
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:13 pm
- Location: Washington D.C.
Pierson was a huge loss....it's pretty ironic that Walt Harris has 3 picks this year when he was french toast while he was here.
The return of Spings should allow us to blitz more often, however, thats part of the problem...we have to blitz so much because our front four is not that good at beating the man one -on-one and getting to the quarterback.
The return of Spings should allow us to blitz more often, however, thats part of the problem...we have to blitz so much because our front four is not that good at beating the man one -on-one and getting to the quarterback.
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________
___________________________
-
crazyhorse1
- ch1
- Posts: 3634
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: virginia beach
The Hogster wrote:Pierson was a huge loss....it's pretty ironic that Walt Harris has 3 picks this year when he was french toast while he was here.
The return of Spings should allow us to blitz more often, however, thats part of the problem...we have to blitz so much because our front four is not that good at beating the man one -on-one and getting to the quarterback.
I couldn't agree more about our need for Preleau, but I don't think he could have helped us with the Cowgirls or Gints. Those two have to go down as losses by the offense.
-
nnskinsfan
- Hog
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:02 pm
I think our DBs would look a lot better if we had a decent pass rush. Even the really good DBs will struggle to stay with a receiver for a long time and as it stands now, even when we blitz, the QBs still usually end up with a lot of time to throw.
I'm not sure I agree. You can say our D held them to 19 and we should have been able to score more than 19 but you never know how the opposing team's play would change based on the score. If we had scored a TD here and there, maybe the Giants call different plays or instead of settling for field goals at times, go for it. You never know, so I don't think that line of thinking really works. That is, if we had scored 21 (or even 14) for example, I doubt the Giants score would have still ended up 19. I tend to think play calling and the play of the opposing team changes based on the score. Who knows if it (the 19) would haven gone up or down if we had scored a few more times.
Those two have to go down as losses by the offense.
I'm not sure I agree. You can say our D held them to 19 and we should have been able to score more than 19 but you never know how the opposing team's play would change based on the score. If we had scored a TD here and there, maybe the Giants call different plays or instead of settling for field goals at times, go for it. You never know, so I don't think that line of thinking really works. That is, if we had scored 21 (or even 14) for example, I doubt the Giants score would have still ended up 19. I tend to think play calling and the play of the opposing team changes based on the score. Who knows if it (the 19) would haven gone up or down if we had scored a few more times.